"That disciple of the noble ones, headman — thus devoid of covetousness, devoid of ill will, unbewildered, alert, mindful — keeps pervading the first direction [the east] with an awareness imbued with good will, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety, he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without hostility, without ill will. Just as a strong conch-trumpet blower can notify the four directions without any difficulty, in the same way, when the awareness-release through good will is thus developed, thus pursued, any deed done to a limited extent no longer remains there, no longer stays there.

I.e. the concept of metta is developed.

On the other hand, many of the instructions in the Satipatthana Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; use the "subdivisions" language, and these are the parts typically used for "vipassana" approaches such as Goenka's, which initially focusses on vedena:

"When feeling a painful feeling of the flesh, he discerns, 'I am feeling a painful feeling of the flesh.' When feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh, he discerns, 'I am feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh.' When feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns, 'I am feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh.' ...

"Furthermore...just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body — however it stands, however it is disposed — in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.'

"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'
... feeling ... peception ... fabrications .... conciousness.
...
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
... feeling ... peception ... fabrications .... conciousness.

"Monks, for one whose awareness-release through good will is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven benefits can be expected. Which eleven?

Excellent and interesting post, Mike!
I look forward to the discussion with interest.

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

My understanding of ‘concept’ is that it is an Idea or Notion formed in the mind.
Is this how you are using it here?

In which case, I don’t see how it applies to Metta meditation.

When I do metta, it is a ‘feeling’ that I pervade, not an Idea.

With metta
Chris

---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

mikenz66 wrote:Are there any suttas where contemplation of conceptual objects leads to insight into the characteristics, etc?

mikenz66 wrote:I was using "conceptual" to mean something created by the mind.

In which case you would be including so called "volitional formations" (sankhara) into the mix.

I think the distinction, using metta-bhavana as per the example you've given, is that if it is a case of absorption is into the volitional object itself, then it could lead only to heavenly destination (hence, brahma-vihara).

If however, the focus was the perception (sanna) on the anicca/anatta/dukkha of the volitional formation itself, then that would lead to insight into the characteristics.

In other words, for insight, it doesn't matter what sankhata-dhamma you are watching (whatever division, sub-division etc.), so long as you are observing its anicca/anatta/dukkha characteristics, as compared to absorbing into the formed object itself.

The way I saw it, I was using "conceptual" to mean something created by the mind.

As I understand it, with metta one generates a loving-kindness concept ("may all beings be happy" or some such).
Of course this will result in the experience of feeling (vedana).

Mike

Hello Mike,
When I’m about to begin Metta meditation, I initially think of an endearing little baby or puppy or kitten etc.
Visualising them evokes a distinct feeling throughout and all over the body and mind of warmth and love.

At that point, immersed in the feeling, I visualise individual persons and hold them in my heart-mind with loving-kindness while saying ‘’May you be safe and protected, may you be healthy and strong, may you be happy of heart and mind, May you live with ease and well-being. May you swiftly progress on the Path to Nibbana, May you have happiness and the causes of happiness, May you be free of mental and physical pain.’’

But the visualising and the feeling being radiated are the important things. I don’t need the words at all.

Do you see the above – as concept?

With interested metta,
Chris

---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

mikenz66 wrote:I was using "conceptual" to mean something created by the mind.

In which case you would be including so called "volitional formations" (sankhara) into the mix.

I guess, so but a "concept" is non-trivial to classify it in terms of khandhas, whether it's the concept of "quantum mechanics" the concept of "my self". See below.

retrofuturist wrote:
I think the distinction, using metta-bhavana as per the example you've given, is that if the case of absorption is into the volitional object itself, then it could lead only to heavenly destination (hence, brahma-vihara).

If however, the focus was the perception (sanna) on the anicca/anatta/dukkha of the volitional formation itself, then that would lead to insight into the characteristics.

Yes, and that would mean analysing the metta in terms of khandas, such as the feelings that arise.

retrofuturist wrote:
In other words, for insight, it doesn't matter what sankhata-dhamma you are watching (whatever division, sub-division etc.), so long as you are observing its anicca/anatta/dukkha characterists, as compared to absorbing into the object itself.

Does that make sense to you?

Somewhat, but note that concepts don't really have such characteristics. There's no anicca/dukkha/anatta in the concept of "quantum mechanics" or "may all beings be happy".

Of course, the machinations that the mind does when trying to do quantum mechanical calculations does have such characteristics..

Concept is an object of mind-consciousness, and it is observed and explained as follows...

SN 22.59 wrote:"What do you think of this, O monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

........

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever mental formations, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all those mental formations must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'These are not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"

This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment.

Indeed, at that time there were six arahants in the world.

... and ...

MN 10 wrote:He understands consciousness and mental objects and the fetter that arises dependent on both (consciousness and mental objects); he understands how the arising of the non-arisen fetter comes to be; he understands how the abandoning of the arisen fetter comes to be; and he understands how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned fetter comes to be.

tiltbillings wrote:As a matter of setting a basis for discussion, it would be helpful to state what is meant by the word dhamma -- just so we can all be on the same page..

tiltbillings wrote:A concept is a "mind-object" when it is a mind object.

And it can be nothing else. There is no "concept" separate from experience of it as a mind object.

tiltbillings wrote:As for the rest of it. It is kind of unnecessary to quote at length suttas.

Well, when you ask how something is done, this being the forum it is, I quote the Buddha's instruction for how it is done. Quite simple, really. That said, I do endeavour to clip anything out that doesn't seem closely related.

mikenz66 wrote:In which sutta does it say that a concept is an object of mind-conciousness?

In the Kalakarama Sutta (Nanananda transaltion), the Tathagatha explains of himself that...

He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about one who cognizes.

Thus, monks, the Tathagata being such-like in regard to all phenomena seen, heard, sensed, and cognized is 'such'.

In setting himself apart in this way, the Tathagata infers that puthujjanas do indeed "conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition"... in other words, they birfurcate between "concept" and "reality" like the Sujinites.

tiltbillings wrote:A concept is a "mind-object" when it is a mind object.

And it can be nothing else. There is no "concept" separate from experience of it as a mind object.

As I said, this, I am not touching.

tiltbillings wrote:As for the rest of it. It is kind of unnecessary to quote at length suttas.

Well, when you ask how something is done, this being the forum it is, I quote the Buddha's instruction for how it is done. Quite simple, really. That said, I do endeavour to clip anything out that doesn't seem closely related.[/quote]Just as an aside, while the Buddha describes what is done, it is not necessarily how it is done, as the texts quoted make quite clear.

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

A concept can only arise after having been learned. Learning is connecting a mere experience with an optical (reading, seeing) and/or acoustical (hearing) symbol amended by a universal distorting visualization of the experience. A (learned) concept actually is a memory ready to come into mind once the experiential stimulus occurs.

This "memory coming into mind" is nothing other than the cascade of dependent origination. Therefore "memory" or "concept" arises in dependence on all aggregates.
First there is a "stirring" dependent on form/body which may be called "sankhara". Only if there is attention this "stirring" develops further until it "crystallizes" (implying alleged "concreteness"). If there is contact of mind consciousness perception and feeling and papanca and volitional formations ensue.
The sense bases involved are one or more of the physical senses and the mind base. Mind base entails determining consciousness which necessarily implies "memory".

TMingyur wrote:A concept can only arise after having been learned. Learning is connecting a mere experience with an optical (reading, seeing) and/or acoustical (hearing) symbol amended by a universal distorting visualization of the experience. A (learned) concept actually is a memory ready to come into mind once the experiential stimulus occurs.

This "memory coming into mind" is nothing other than the cascade of dependent origination. Therefore "memory" or "concept" arises in dependence on all aggregates.
First there is a "stirring" dependent on form/body which may be called "sankhara". Only if there is attention this "stirring" develops further until it "crystallizes" (implying alleged "concreteness"). If there is contact of mind consciousness perception and feeling and papanca and volitional formations ensue.
The sense bases involved are one or more of the physical senses and the mind base. Mind base entails determining consciousness which necessarily implies "memory".

Kind regards

and we can let it go at that.

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723